Advertisement

A gang scheduling design for multiprogrammed parallel computing environments

  • Fang Wang
  • Hubertus Franke
  • Marios Papaefthymiou
  • Pratap Pattnaik
  • Larry Rudolph
  • Mark S. Squillante
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1162)

Abstract

Gang scheduling is a resource management scheme for parallel and distributed systems that combines time-sharing and space-sharing to ensure high overall system throughput and short response times for interactive tasks. We recently participated in the design and implementation of a flexible gang scheduling scheme on an IBM SP2 parallel system and a cluster of IBM RS/6000 workstations. In this paper, we present our gang scheduling system and some results of a mathematical model for our system. Using this model, we can obtain exact solutions for measures of system performance as a function of scheduling policy parameters, and thus determine optimal values for several system and policy variables such as the amount of time allocated to the time-slice of each task.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Asmussen, O. Nerman, and M. Olsson. Fitting phase type distributions via the EM algorithm. Technical Report 1994:23, Department of Mathematics, Chalmers University of Technology, May 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S.-H. Chiang, R. K. Mansharamani, and M. K. Vernon. Use of application characteristics and limited preemption for run-to-completion parallel processor scheduling policies. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pages 33–44, May 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. D. Cung et al. Concurrent data structures and load balancing strategies for parallel branch-and-bound/a* algorithms. In The Third DIMACS International Algorithm Implementation Challenge on Parallel Algorithms, October 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Dussa, B. Carlson, L. Dowdy, and K.-H. Park. Dynamic partitioning in transputer environments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pages 203–213, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. J. Faddy. Fitting structured phase-type distributions. Technical report, Department of Mathematics, University of Queensland, Australia, April 1994. To appear, Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. G. Feitelson and B. Nitzberg. Job characteristics of a production parallel scientific workload on the NASA Ames iPSC/860. Technical Report RC 19773, IBM Research Division, October 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph. Distributed hierarchical control for parallel processing. Computer, May 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph. Mapping and scheduling in a shared parallel environment using distributed hierarchical control. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing, volume I, pages 1–8, August 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. G. Feitelson and L. Rudolph. Gang scheduling performance benefits for finegrain synchronization. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 16(4):306–318, December 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Ghosal, G. Serazzi, and S. K. Tripathi. The processor working set and its use in scheduling multiprocessor systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17:443–453, May 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Gupta, A. Tucker, and S. Urushibara. The impact of operating system scheduling policies and synchronization methods on the performance of parallel applications. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, May 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Hotovy. Cornell Theory Center workload measurements. Personal Communications, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Hotovy, D. Schneider, and T. O'Donnell. Analysis of the early workload on the Cornell Theory Center IBM SP2. Technical report, Cornell Theory Center, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Kleinrock. Queueing Systems Volume I: Theory. John Wiley and Sons, 1975.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Krishnamurthy et al. Connected components on distributed memory machines. In The Third DIMACS International Algorithm Implementation Challenge on Parallel Algorithms, October 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Lang. Parameter estimation for phase-type distributions, part I: Fundamentals and existing methods. Technical Report 159, Department of Statistics, Oregon State University, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Lang and J. L. Arthur. Parameter estimation for phase-type distributions, part II: Computational evaluation. Technical Report 160, Department of Statistics, Oregon State University, August 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. T. Leutenegger and M. K. Vernon. The performance of multiprogrammed multiprocessor scheduling policies. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pages 226–236, May 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. D. C. Little. A proof of the queuing formula L=λW. Operations Research, 9, 1961.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. McCann, R. Vaswani, and J. Zahorjan. A dynamic processor allocation policy for multiprogrammed shared-memory multiprocessors. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 11(2):146–178, May 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. K. Naik, S. K. Setia, and M. S. Squillante. Performance analysis of job scheduling policies in parallel supercomputing environments. In Proceedings of Supercomputing '93, pages 824–833, November 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. K. Naik, S. K. Setia, and M. S. Squillante. Scheduling of large scientific applications on distributed memory multiprocessor systems. In Proceedings Sixth SIAM Conference on Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, pages 913–922, March 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. F. Neuts. Matrix-Geometric Solutions in Stochastic Models: An Algorithmic Approach. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    E. Rosti, E. Smirni, L. W. Dowdy, G. Serazzi, and B. M. Carlson. Robust partitioning policies of multiprocessor systems. Performance Evaluation, 19:141–165, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. Schreiber and H. D. Simon. Towards the teraflops capability for CFD. In H. D. Simon, editor, Parallel CFD — Implementations and Results Using Parallel Computers. MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. K. Setia and S. K. Tripathi. A comparative analysis of static processor partitioning policies for parallel computers. In Proceedings of MASCOTS '93, January 1993.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. C. Sevcik. Characterizations of parallelism in applications and their use in scheduling. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pages 171–180, May 1989.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. C. Sevcik. Application scheduling and processor allocation in multiprogrammed parallel processing systems. Performance Evaluation, 19:107–140, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. S. Squillante, F. Wang, and M. Papaefthymiou. An analysis of gang scheduling for multiprogrammed parallel computing environments. Technical report, IBM Research Division, January 1996. To appear in Proceedings of the Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Parallel Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA), June 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    H. Franke, P. Pattnaik. Technical report in preparation, IBM Research Division, January 1996Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    H. Franke, P. Pattnaik. Technical report in preparation, IBM Research Division, January 1996Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. Tucker and A. Gupta. Process control and scheduling issues for multiprogrammed shared-memory multiprocessors. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 159–166, December 1989.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. Zahorjan and C. McCann. Processor scheduling in shared memory multiprocessors. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pages 214–225, May 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fang Wang
    • 1
  • Hubertus Franke
    • 2
  • Marios Papaefthymiou
    • 1
  • Pratap Pattnaik
    • 2
  • Larry Rudolph
    • 2
  • Mark S. Squillante
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentYale UniversityNew Haven
  2. 2.IBM Research DivisionT.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown Heights

Personalised recommendations